Contemporary Photographers

jnanian said:

Maris:

do you "edition" your photographs and destroy the negative after a singular print is made ?

Click to expand...

No, I make successive originals, all different, and therefore singular.

what is the maximum size permitted before the image becomes empty?

Click to expand...

The emptiness comes not from size. Big size is a ploy to suggest emptiness is significant.

and photographers like HCB karsh, hurrell, and others who had work printed by a printer aren't valid?

Click to expand...

All of them towering talents as camera-men. And they deserve all their fame. But photographers? Nah!

some people who make "contemporary" imagery that is large ( or small ) do just that.
their images are rare, are singular, and are crafted by hand.

Click to expand...

I can't think of a major "contemporary" figure that does this.

just because it isn't imagery based on a 19th century ( or better yet a pre-mid 19th century notion )
doesn't mean it is meaningless, or the other discriptions you use.

Click to expand...

History does not confer meaning or extinguish it.

but then again every is obviously able to have their own valid opinion ..

Click to expand...

People are even entitled to invalid opinions.

i don't believe that in order to be a "real photographer producing artwork"
one needs to do the printing oneself, make prints like they did in 1850 ...
and i don't believe that every image that might get printed by a machine ( either ink or laser ) is exactly the same,
just like i don't believe that every hand printed image is exactly the same / there are variations. but i do believe
unless someone destroys their negative or only makes single prints there is no such thing as a rare/singular "traditional" silver print.

Click to expand...

And interesting set of beliefs worth testing by objective thought.

while i enjoy looking at things that sprouted from a mid or pre-mid 19th century notion
using a process from the same time period, i also get inspiration from early 20th century
practicioners who decided to give the medium the ability to breathe on its own and saw what happens
when they did what they did, whether they were pictorialists who brought pt/pd and gum printing from the grave,
or they were people making cameraless images, constructions or photographing the world from a different perspective.
i am also a enjoyer of people who are still in practice today
who pushed the envelope in the 1980s making giant photographs by hand, and who at present
use encaustic paints to hand work some of their images.

Click to expand...

It would be easy to defend an opposite set of values as a guide to the enjoyment of art. Subjectivity rules...except about facts. Sorry about the clipped replies. I'm off on a five day shoot elsewhere.

Maris said:

All of them towering talents as camera-men. And they deserve all their fame. But photographers? Nah!

Click to expand...

Is't this a contradiction in terms?

I never heard of any of those on that list. I think you can still define W. Eugene Smith, Alfred Eistenstadt, Lewis Hine and HCB as contemporary. Those have influenced the way I "see" as much or more than anyone else.

I agree,....photographers? A few. And the ones I do know;

• Rineke Dijkstra (film)
  
• Ryan McGinley (film)
  
• Terry Richardson (digital now)
  
• Gregory Crewdson (film) And a professor at Yale,....and awesome guy
  
• Nick Knight (digital now)
  
• Alec Soth (mostly large format film for projects,...but does use digital)
  
• Juergen Teller (was film, and the guy who single handed made the Contax G2 expensive,...recently Canon 5D III)
  
• Cindy Sherman (film)
  
• Taryn Simon (Film)
• Annie Leibovitz (now digital)
  
• Joe McNally (now digital,...I bought my Contax G1 from him)
  
• Ai Weiwei (I wouldn't call him a photographer, although his installations do sometimes include photographs)

This list is probably the most subjective list I've ever seen. But more than that, doesn't seem to have any theme, or rhyme or reason. The others I'll have to look up. (other than 'unknown' and Hubble)

Federico

Maris said:

No, I make successive originals, all different, and therefore singular.

The emptiness comes not from size. Big size is a ploy to suggest emptiness is significant.

All of them towering talents as camera-men. And they deserve all their fame. But photographers? Nah!


I can't think of a major "contemporary" figure that does this.

History does not confer meaning or extinguish it.


People are even entitled to invalid opinions.

And interesting set of beliefs worth testing by objective thought.


It would be easy to defend an opposite set of values as a guide to the enjoyment of art. Subjectivity rules...except about facts. Sorry about the clipped replies. I'm off on a five day shoot elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Back in the 1940s and '50s, us amateurs had a saying about print size, etc. It went like this:"if you can't make a good photograph from a negative, then make a print from it that is BIG, BLUE, and GLOSSY". Have things really changed much since then?........Regards!

Maris said:

No, I make successive originals, all different, and therefore singular.

The emptiness comes not from size. Big size is a ploy to suggest emptiness is significant.

All of them towering talents as camera-men. And they deserve all their fame. But photographers? Nah!


I can't think of a major "contemporary" figure that does this.

Sorry about the clipped replies. I'm off on a five day shoot elsewhere.

Click to expand...

so to sum it up
• successive "original" prints made from the same negative are all singular images?
i'm sure someone who bought a print of an edition of 4 and noticed the photographer has made 18 of the
same image might think differently

• if it is printed large is is crap,
some might be, but it is like suggesting that anything bigger than an illuminated manuscript
is crap ( like the ceiling of the sistine chapel ) because it is large. there are plenty of large photographs
( contemporary or vintage ) that are not crap, just like there are plenty of smaller images that are not so great.

• people who are famous and who had printers get a free pass
because they, and their work are well known, anyone else who has
a printer make their prints and calls themselves a photographer isn't one because they don't make photographic prints
( even though i have been told on this forum that the negative is the photograph, not the print )
it also means that people who do color work with C41 and E6 and send their work to a lab are out of luck too.

• vintage process or "authentic hand processed photograph" does not automatically make it good
before the digital camera existed i am certain there were billions of terrible photographs printed on paper,
by hand or mini lab operator.

* one of the westons ( don't know which one, i never followed them or their work ) who cut up his negatives
and included them with them with the prints isn't contemporary, people who make photograms, hand painted/colored prints, solargraphs,
printed hybrid constructions, cut-up-collagists, alumotypists, ambrotypists, bromoilists, people who make solarized images, or gum-over-platinium, or carbon prints ...
don't coount ?

• No worries

hope the expedition was fun !

The reactionary will always be with us I suppose.